FW: A profile for TV

As I do not see my mail on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Dec/ I just try a second time, in case it was blocked or lost?

Best Regards,

Jacques

From: Jacques DUMAREST
Sent: mercredi 21 décembre 2011 11:32
To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
Cc: Jacques DUMAREST; Yann GARNIER; Fabrizio Simone ROVATI
Subject: A profile for TV

Hi,

I just joined the public "Web and TV" mailing list (STMicroelectronics currently not part of W3C) and would like to push this "Profile for TV" initiative.

Web technologies are invading TV world, but in order to ensure compatibility, profiles are needed. These profiles (I think we'll need to define more than a single profile) should define a subset of these technologies and provide a way to test/validate these profiles. HTML5 is very wide, and for example A/V codecs specification is open; WebGL (not HTML5, but part of these new web technologies) provides great features, but a subset of the spec as well as some minimum performance could be provided in profiles. The main goal should be to ensure interoperability

There is already some profile definition in DLNA, or in "BBC interactive HTML Application" documents, so we need to make sure we don't just add ONE specification, but work in coordination with other standard bodies (DTG, HbbTV, OIPF,...) to improve interoperability (and not increase fragmentation).

Best Regards,

Jacques Dumarest
Principal Engineer
STMicroelectronics
Home Entertainment & Display Group

From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com<mailto:giuseppep@opera.com>>
Subject: A profile for TV
Date: December 13, 2011 5:01:32 AM MST
To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org<mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org>" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org<mailto:public-web-and-tv@w3.org>>

Hi all,
I believe is time to start to consolidate the experience we are gathering
during our conversation in this IG. One way to achieve this could be to
work together on a "Profile for TV".

As we discussed during our last F2F in Hollywood (notes available at [1]),
there are different meaning that people usually associate to the word
"profile" and for sure we will have to address this as a first step of our
work and set out clear expectations.

With this email I would like to ask IG members:

1) if they are interested to work on such a profile
2) what are your expectations for such a document.

about 1),to express you interest please send a reply to this mail to the
list or privately to me. If there is enough support we will start a new TF
working on this.

about 2), I'll list below my expectations, feel free to do the same in
reply to this mail, adding your expectations or commenting on mine


My expectations:

* The range of technologies available for web applications is so wide that
an implementers necessarily need to make a choice on what to implement and
when.

While in some ecosystems is fine to leave to each implementer to choose
his own roadmap, in other ecosystems there is a need for coordination in
order to harmonize the development cycle of the different stakeholders (CE
manufacturers, Content providers, Content Authors, etc.) and provide a
good user experience.

A profile can then also help on this aspect.

* The HTML5 spec, in some places, defers to other specs the role of
defining
how a feature would be mapped on other layers of the media stack.
For example, for in-band tracks you can read
"Set the new text track's kind, label, and language based on the semantics
of the relevant data, as defined by the relevant specification."

While this is perfectly fine in the HTML5 scope, is clear that a mapping
document (the "relevant specification") needs to be defined by someone
depending on the infrastructure they are using. This discussion is
currently going on in the Media Pipeline Task Force, but we eventually
need to write down this mapping spec (as already suggested by Clarke at
TPAC).

There are other areas where a similar work is needed (e.g. exposing
metadata)

A TV profile could serve this purpose as well.

* Task Forces of the IG are trying to identify gaps in web technologies.
Sometimes the outcome of the discussion is just that there is already a
way to cover a use case with existing technologies. If this outcome is not
documented somewhere, though, there is a risk that other people will have
the same discussion again. Would be than good to document how certain use
cases, relevant for the TV industry, can be covered with existing
technologies.

A TV profile can help to document this.

* There are some identified gaps which are being addressed by work in one
or more W3C WGs. Is good to document this activity so that people
looking for that know where to find it.

This can also be documented in a profile.



[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/09/21-22-webtv-f2f-minutes.html#day1-am2
[2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/introduction.html#scope
[3]
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/media-elements.html#sourcing-in-band-text-tracks

--
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software